Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Markus-5
Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
i expect the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Wiklund Johan
As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly built routing engines.

Regards

Johan Wiklund
Data manager
[hidden email]
www.entur.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Markus [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: torsdag 23. mai 2019 18.11
To: Talk <[hidden email]>
Cc: Bryan Housel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority, i expect the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM, then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.) I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Phil Wyatt
Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

Cheers - Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiklund Johan [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 6:28 PM
To: Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly built routing engines.

Regards

Johan Wiklund
Data manager
[hidden email]
www.entur.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Markus [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: torsdag 23. mai 2019 18.11
To: Talk <[hidden email]>
Cc: Bryan Housel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Hello Bryan, hello everyone,

I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.

> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.

While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other opinions.

> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.

So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority, i expect the iD developers to follow it.

Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:

* Automated Edits code of conduct
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to platforms. This is an automated edit.
* Map what's on the ground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
A platform is not a footway.
* Don't map for the renderer
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.

> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.

If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM, then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.) I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for Wikibase (data items).

I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.

Best regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

dieterdreist


Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt <[hidden email]>:
Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster


The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally. People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging.

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing issues because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable it makes people worrying.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Phil Wyatt

Hi Martin,

 

So what are the explicit exceptions given the wiki says “Use public_transport=platform to identify the places where passengers board or alight from public transport of any type” which to me would also suggest that it’s a footway (highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians).

 

Is there a tag that these exceptions have that can also be checked in the validation?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

 

 

 

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt <[hidden email]>:

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

 

 

The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally. People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

 

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging.

 

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing issues because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable it makes people worrying.

 

Cheers,

Martin


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

lsces
In reply to this post by Wiklund Johan
On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly built routing engines.

Same here ...
Routing for rail passengers should be handled correctly by the routing
engine as it's separate from 'public right of access' and access to
platforms is an additional area that requires management separate to
simple public footpaths?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Phil Wyatt
In reply to this post by dieterdreist

Hi Martin,

 

PS – Is a meadow ‘used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians’? I think not, likewise is a carpark ‘used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians’ – again I think not. If there is a well worn path through the meadow then yes, or if there are designated footways through the carpark then yes they should also be added…in my opinion.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

 

 

 

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt <[hidden email]>:

Hi Folks,

As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

 

 

The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally. People can also walk over meadows, following this logics we should be suggesting to add highway=footway to all meadows? Or amenity=parking?

 

I agree, this should not become suggested tagging.

 

It is so sad the issue has been closed in the github tracker because of too many people complaining (politely) about a developer decision. Closing issues because of disagreement is toxic behaviour and it is understandable it makes people worrying.

 

Cheers,

Martin


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Snusmumriken
In reply to this post by Wiklund Johan
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:27 +0000, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the
> opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose
> but to please poorly built routing engines.

I concur


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Wiklund Johan
On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly built routing engines.

Whole heartedly agree. There are far too many routers who can't be
bothered to write code. The navigation of pedestrian areas being one
example.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Phil Wyatt
On 24/05/2019 10:41, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster

Hi Phil

1) Even for newbies, common sense should tell you that railway=platforms
are for the purpose of being walked on - it doesn't require a
confirmation tag.

2) iD developers quincylvania & bhousel are *implying* when saying _all_
platforms should have this tag*:

"iD should add highway=footway automatically and recommend upgrading
features lacking this tag."


* if a platform isn't accessible for some reason, an appropriate tag
such as access=* or disused:* can be used

DaveF

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Markus-5
The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:

> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Andrew Hain
Also:

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

Write a new online editor from scratch.

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

--
Andrew

From: Simon Poole <[hidden email]>
Sent: 27 May 2019 11:07
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
 
The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.

As I see it we can choose between

- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)

- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)

- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)

- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)

- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)

That's probably about it.

Simon

Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
>
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
> opinions.
>
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
>
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
>
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct):
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground):
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer):
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
>
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Wiklund Johan
Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built
> routing engines.

Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?

OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the
platforms. Graphhopper does.

I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and
bike routing better, and this isn't one of them.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Phil Wyatt
In reply to this post by Andrew Hain

I cant see how a new team of developers would help – they would be operating under the same rules (which I suspect are pretty vague) as all the current developers. Who at the moment dictates which editors can be used at osm.org? If they don’t like ID, they can get it turned off.

 

If the ID editor is the most popular it’s probably for a good reason – it’s easy to use for newbies and intermediate mappers.

 

If the tags are wrong, ambiguous, duplicated or poorly defined then I suggest fix the tagging system first so it’s clear for all developers.

 

Cheers – Phil

 

From: Andrew Hain [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 8:27 PM
To: Simon Poole; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

 

Also:

 

Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.

 

Write a new online editor from scratch.

 

Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

 

--

Andrew


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Andrew Hain
Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
On Monday 27 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
> had exactly 0 effect.
>
> As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]

I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.  
I in particular see:

* a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly
what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete
fork.
* a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on
the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious
trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain
modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily
replaced or disabled by deployments.

On a general note and w.r.t. what Markus wrote:

> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>: You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
> to platforms. This is an automated edit.

it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously
perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access
to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org.  I don't
know if iD in its current configuation does this but this seems so
obvious and self evident as a principle that it is not even necessary
to codify this into written policy IMO.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Jo-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
I went to check a platform tagged as

highway=platform

which is perfectly alright.

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

public_transport=platform
bus=yes

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

highway=footway

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect, complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

Oh well,

Back to JOSM for me.

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Jo-2
And the disease is spreading:


I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
I went to check a platform tagged as

highway=platform

which is perfectly alright.

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

public_transport=platform
bus=yes

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

highway=footway

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect, complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

Oh well,

Back to JOSM for me.

Jo

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Phil Wyatt
In reply to this post by Jo-2

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform

 

This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

From: Jo [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 9:04 PM
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

 

I went to check a platform tagged as

 

highway=platform

 

which is perfectly alright.

 

iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:

 

public_transport=platform

bus=yes

 

Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:

 

highway=footway

 

So they are transposing highway=platform to highway=footway. Odd.

 

Anyway, complaining about it on a mailing list doesn't have any effect, complaining about it on github will get the issue closed in no time.

 

I also think a time out for iD makes sense, until they will start to listen to the community. Tough call, of course and they know it.

 

Oh well,

 

Back to JOSM for me.

 

Jo

 

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Jo-2
In case that this is an undesirable wrong tagging one may request JOSM dev
to add validator rule fixing this.

You may also propose worldwide bot edit reverting such changes.

(note, I am not sure whatever either is a good idea, it is one of reasons why I did neither)

27 May 2019, 13:08 by [hidden email]:
And the disease is spreading:


I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
12